I’m limiting the options in this thread to military solutions*, directing my argument at the root of the ISIS phenomenon, at least as described here:
If it is truly the case that there is a widespread belief that the pre-nationalist Islamic era is the best historical example extant, then a new, more convincing historical narrative needs to be generated.
I am not suggesting defending secular nationalism in the Middle East- with all these failed states, maybe we ought to let some go and allow some more natural ones to emerge. The focus is on destroying the belief that a return to the 7th century will deliver results. Re-imagine ISIS’ destruction of national identities as an historical vacuum that is begging to be filled by outsiders.
First, allow the caliphate to be established. Then, conquer it. American wars past the frontier days have not been wars of conquest, and I think people forget what conquest means. The goal here is not to simply defeat an army or topple a leader, it is to claim wild, lawless territory as our own through military force, and then to govern it as a colony for at least 99 years.
It will be bitter and bloody. Depending on how quickly the locals accept it, a police state may be required for a long time. The western-friendly education system we would have to impose would not go over well in the wider region. An American or perhaps international coalition caliphate colony in the heart of the Middle East would probably be a bigger controversy than the state of Israel and would likely generate more violence than Israel does, but that’s just too bad. A new historical example needs to be constructed, one which convincingly demonstrates the results of establishing a brutal 7th century-style caliphate. And that result is foreign domination of the caliphate for at least 99 years. The desire to return to the 7th century will then be well and truly squashed- at least in this region. If it isn’t, we come back and do it again for another 99 years.
If you have a more efficient military solution that tackles the heart of the issue like this plan does, let’s hear it.
*I don’t guarantee that military solutions are always the best solutions. It is a narrow thread topic.
There isnt a military solution save for what Hitler planned to do to the East. That would solve the problem but at a cost no one is willing to pay.
Islam was lucky to be founded in the 7th century. Rome was in ruins and Byzantium could barely hold them back. Had Islam been founded in the 2nd century it would have been destroyed. ISIL will never in our time acheive the military success of the early Islamic armies. The best solution is to let em fight and bleed each other dry. Then maybe the region will learn what the Euros learned in 1945: Wars and dictators destroy. Time to live in peace.
As for the proposed plan : it is insane and completely out of any regards with proportions. ISIS comprises, at the higher estimates, 300 thousand people. Yet for… some reason, I don’t even know what threat they pose to anybody outside of their narrow sphere of influence ; you propose subjecting over 200 million people to brutality, a police state, mandatory propaganda, not to mention a constant and ubiqitious climate of oppression, repression, violence against the (inevitable, and wholly justified) local resistance against such a brilliant scheme. And that’s of course glossing over the cost of this sterling scheme in terms of political clout, credibility, resources and lives for your country ; or the feasibility of holding onto so much hostile territory when y’alls can’t even hold Detroit. Yanno, details like that.
You’re bonkers if you believe for a second anything even remotely like that is in the cards, mate.
Or, even if it were on the cards, that it would have the desired outcome. The caliphate has been established, conquered and colonised before, remember, and we are where we are.
Never mind whether this or any other military solution is the best solution. Right now it doesn’t look like it’s a solution at all.
I’d support this. We should make it clear that our neo-colonialization is for our own benefit, not for the benefit of the people we conquer, though they’d probably benefit too. What better way to say “fuck you” than to indoctrinate our enemies’ children to hate their parents?
I don’t think that we can bomb democracy into the Middle East, but we wouldn’t be doing that. Rather, we’d simply be recognizing that we rule over them because we’re better than them. And since we could just take their oil, it would probably pay for itself.
And while we’re dreaming, maybe the Pope can call a Crusade.
I know it sounds crazy but people generally want to get on with their lives, go to work, sent the kids to school, come home and watch soccer on the satellite.
If the whole region wasn’t being treated as a proxy war by pretty well everyone who can it might just be a start. In fact, I’d start with the USA’s great friend the headbanging Wahabists - stupid 18th century headbanging fucks.
It seems about how long it would take to generate the kind of historical precedent I’m talking about. Britain controlled Hong Kong for 99 years if I am not mistaken- it is cribbed from that.
This would be an excellent way to ensure that the so-called Islamic state (and its future spin-offs) will became, not an existential threat to the US, but a serious threat. Something it currently is not. A better military solution would be to do nothing.
Easy. Leave it alone. ISIS has a limited sell-by date. All their neighbors hate them. Their message resonates only with a minority. Sooner or later ISIS will be destroyed by other Muslims, and then they will have a sense of accomplishment for having struck a blow against backward-looking Islamism.
